The 47 minute film titled “The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking”, by the author of the famous book on the founding of the Federal Reserve System “Creature from Jekyll Island”, can be watched here or here. The material that G. Edward Griffin used for his film to identify the private Western banking cartel as the Capitalist Conspirators, is from the book Tragedy and Hope (read here) written by the George Town University Professor of History, and President Bill Clinton’s mentor, Dr. Carroll Quigley. The filmmaker also acknowledged W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist (excerpts here), as the key source of inspiration for his film.

The transcription of excerpts from the internet version of this film in this essay is provided for those busy peoples of the world who do not have much time to read complex books, or to watch lengthy videos as they pursue their respective “American Dreams”. Excerpt-1 contains the first introductory minute of the full video, followed by two short 9 and 5 minute excerpt clips of the film found on youtube. It is hoped that the transcription of shorter clips will entice the reader into watching the full film, and into rationally connecting the dots to the Current Affairs that are grotesquely unfolding before everyone’s eyes even as I write this.

Excerpt-2 contains the following remarkable narration by G. Edward Griffin in the ’70s which forebodingly foretold the future that is manifestly here today:

“Create conditions so frightful at home and abroad, that the abandonment of personal liberties and national sovereignty, will appear as a reasonable price for a return to domestic tranquility and world peace.

If those who seek world dominion can stimulate leftist mobs into violent confrontation with local law enforcement, and also provide exhaustive news coverage, so that the entire nation can see and tremble, then the peaceful and freedom loving majority can be programmed to accept a vast expansion of government powers, and even a national police force, offered supposedly to end the violence.

If those who seek world dominion can raise the spectre of an enemy, armed to the teeth with superior atomic weapons on the verge of launching a nuclear holocaust, and also offer world-government as the prevention, then millions of Americans can be programmed to accept the loss of national sovereignty, as our last best hope for peace.”

That Capitalist Conspiracy of the financial oligarchy leading to an end to national sovereignty, was also the likely prime-mover behind their influential mouth-piece CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine April 1974 article “The Hard Road To World Order” by Richard N. Gardner. However, before proceeding to Gardner’s prescription, it is instructive to take a few moments to peruse on one’s own, Harper magazine’s July 1958 eye-opening introduction to the purpose and composition of CFR – the Council on Foreign Relations located in New York – written by CFR member Joseph Kraft, entitled “School for Statesmen”. Only then will the wide-ranging impact on global policy of the modus operandi outlined in 1974 by the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, become coldly apparent:

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

One example of this insidious “eroding it piece by piece” can be seen at play today in the short clip found on youtube of CNN report (4 minutes clip) hosted by journalist Lou Dobbs, in which CFR author Robert Pastor outlined the plans for “Building a North American Community” by 2010 based on a CFR strategy/policy planning document with that name.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul (2 minutes clip) called it the “Conspiracy of Ideas” during a 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates’ debate amidst thunderous applause from the audience.

He candidly and boldly observed that the “CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists”, and that it is “an ideological battle” in which:

“some people believe in Globalism, and others of us believe in national sovereignty;

and there is a move on toward a North American Union just like early on there was a move on for a European Union and it eventually ended up. …

These are real things, it’s not somebody made these up, it’s not a conspiracy, they don’t talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there has been money spent on it …

So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy, it’s a contest between ideologies; whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move in the direction of international government, more UN.

You know, this country goes to war under UN Resolutions.

I don’t like big government in Washington.

So I don’t like this trend towards international government …

But it’s not so much it’s a sinister conspiracy, it’s just knowledge is out there, if we look for it, you’ll realize our national sovereignty is under threat!”

Another instance of devilishly crafting the “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece [to] accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault” can be seen in the crafty lender’s trap that most developing nations have been snared in by the tag team duo WB–IMF (see Michel Chossudovsky Financial Warfare). The belated exposés of consummate insiders now turned ‘priests’, like the famous John Perkins, tell the sorry tale of deprivation and in-humanity that is being continually visited upon the vast majority of the poor peoples on planet earth through this deliberate debt-lever which is used to compel once sovereign nations, into accepting the neo-liberal policies crafted by the same financial oligarchic Western ruling elite! The CFR is only its American Arm. The super-NAFTA highway (7 minutes clip) under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) for the impending North American Union, only its latest victim!

The European arm of this Western axis of evil is buried in other similar institutional forums of the enormously wealthy, such as the annual Bilderbergers meeting, the RIIA British parent-arm of the American CFR, etc. This two-minute video clip showing Vice President Dick Cheney speaking at the CFR, reveals the role of institutional money-bags like David Rockefeller in influencing/manufacturing global policies quite unbeknownst to the affected public.

The long-term solution to preempt such devious modus operandi of “eroding it piece by piece” was farsightedly outlined by Griffin in the ’70s – if only anyone was paying attention at the time – and is reproduced in Excerpt-3 below. Its item seven is of monumental interest to concerned citizens as it endeavors to eliminate the largest motivator behind wars, behind globalism, behind internationalism, by attacking their main financial lever which enables it all through the deceptive oligarchic control of their nation’s money supply.

How this financial lever is actually exercised to manipulate national destiny from behind the scenes was very colorfully, and based on the grotesque examination of reality, also accurately, depicted in a fictionalized book “Philip Dru: Administrator” by Col. Edward Mandell House. He was the principal advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, and both of them were responsible for enabling the Federal Reserve System racket in 1913 that Griffin exposes.

And the cycle of wars and profit which is largely responsible for creating such massive wealth consolidations in the first place that creates and sustains the financial lever, was even noted by the highly decorated American war hero of WWI, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, in his famous booklet “War is a Racket”. Gen. Smedley Butler was the patriot who blew the whistle on the attempted 1933 fascist “Plot to seize the White House” by the financial oligarchs (watch the BBC Radio 4 Document, The White House Coup, by Mike Thomson, pt2, pt3). That bizarre attempted fascist takeover of the United States, mirrored Hitler’s successful fascist takeover of Germany using the same pretext: threat from “Communism”. And both backed by the same financial oligarchs [1] located in the Anglo-American nexus of evil! [2]

Comparing this historical reality with the fictionalized depiction by Col. House in his book, makes the two remarkably congruent, as if one blueprints the other.

Just as today, Brzezinski’s book ‘The Grand Chessboard’ empirically blueprints the existential necessity of “Islamofascism”, with the new boogieman enabling the “lifetime” of “War on Terror” for “imperial mobilization”, the “World War IV”. A worthy successor indeed to its predecessor boogieman of “Communism”, which first enabled fascism to take root in Europe leading to WWII. Then after WWII, for the Cold War to hold the world hostage for four decades. The cycle repeats [3] with the predictability of science, political science!

The ab initio enabler, and the eventual beneficiary behind the scenes, in all cases, is only one – the financial cartel which bankrolls all sides, and then takes over the assets of the defeated ones while simultaneously holding the ‘victorious’ in enormous debt burden incurred in the process – to which the United States government today, for its most recent wars since 911, owes trillions of dollars in principal and interest.

And all that these private financiers do to earn this ‘Karoon’s wealth’, is to legally print money by fiat – out of thin air [4] – under the Federal Reserve System, and then loan it back to the United States government anytime the superpower wants to bring democracy to other nations, bail out collapsing institutions, increase defense spending for military transformation of its forces, or award nation re-building contracts after bringing them democracy!

And we haven’t even mentioned the role of the financial-elite in the management of the complex trading instruments of Wall Street and its boom-bust cycles which also mainly end up benefitting only them in multiple ways. One: they acquire real tangible assets of peoples and nations pennies to the dollar during bust in exchange for paper-money that was printed out of thin air in the first place. Two: they consolidate their hold over smaller entities who can’t survive the bust to create greater combines. Three: they get a bailout with tax-payer monies after having made a killing on the same speculative financial instruments which create the next bust in the cycle following an artificially crafted temporary boom! Four: the bailout money is also printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve System and loaned back to the federal government for bailout use, which subsequently traps the tax-payer into paying off that additional money-issuance debt.

Yet, everyone pretends, including the economists, and especially the economists, that it is the unpredictable market forces of capitalism which create these boom-bust cycles! One can easily understand the co-option in this argument by examining the deliberately induced subprime financial crisis [5] which now entails the very predictable trillion-dollar tax-payer’s bailout of the “banksters”. Michael Hudson in “Financial Bailout: America’s Own Kleptocracy” attempts to put it in plain words:

“So why has the Treasury found it necessary to enter this picture at all? Why should these gamblers be bailed out, if they had enough to lose without having to become public wards by going on welfare? … This is the largest and most inequitable transfer of wealth since the land giveaways to the railroad barons during the Civil War era.”

But that bailout is still just the tip of the ice-berg. Columnist Ben Stein finally dares to suggest the anticipatedness of the bailout in his “expert” article on Yahoo finance. Stein first observes the fact that “The amount of subprime that defaulted was at most – after recovery in liquidation – about $250 billion. A huge sum but not enough to torpedo the US economy”. And after briefly explaining Credit Default Swaps – the newest speculative financial instrument responsible for this bust – Stein writes: [6]

“As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse…)”

Indeed! The financiers are laughing their way to their own deep vaults. For they surely find much to rejoice in what must be the new money-lender’s adage, owe the bank a million dollars and can’t pay: you are in trouble; owe the bank a billion dollars and can’t pay: the bank’s in trouble; the bank owes a trillion dollars and can’t pay: the nation is in trouble and the bank ends up owning the nation!

The blatant truism of the latter conquest rests in the fact that the same private banks under the Federal Reserve System will also print the bailout money at the request of the federal government’s Treasury Department, loan it back to the federal government with interest, and stick the already overburdened tax-payer with the bill for both the principal and interest for the issuance of money to cover the bust! So the speculative financial instrument not only made its transactors an exponential amount of money on the speculation itself, but simultaneously, further ensnared the nation in the debt-trap!

It isn’t for nothing that Griffin has quoted Reginald McKenna as having stated: “they who control the credit of the nation, direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands, the destiny of the people.”

What a profoundly mathematical financial lever – only demigods could have thought of it, or their “chosen peoples”. The wiser God of world’s religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that of the literary world, William Shakespeare, forbid dealing in any usury based system precisely because of this lender’s trap which ultimately demands its “pound of flesh”! While usury is ancient, the speculative transaction is purely a modern day devilish invention by the financial geniuses running Wall Street, to more creatively instrument exponentially higher debt, and thus keep the public and governments perpetually ensnared in the usury cycle!

The end goal of the financial oligarchy this time around in the 21st Century? A global fascist world-government in which they own everything of value. But why fascist? And one might well ask what is the modern political science basis for that goal and how is it convincingly linked to the financiers?

Well, taking the second question first, and the first question towards the end of this essay. If one does not wish to recourse to inspiration from Plato or Nietzsche, Griffin points to a more recent linkage in the full video (14:37). Quoting from Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book, Griffin identifies John Ruskin as the key thinker at Oxford University in the UK in 1870, whose rehash of the same old ‘ubermensch’ doctrines of the ‘enlightened few’ and the ‘white man’s burden’, immensely influenced financial tycoons like Cecil Rhodes who was his student as an undergraduate, and Lord Alfred Milner, who was Rhodes’ confidante! Before WWI, Lord Milner set in motion the “Round Tables” which subsequently led to the founding of RIIA Chatham House in the UK, and the CFR in the US. Today, the CFR and its sister forums are the front face of “banksters” like David Rockefeller and the Anglo-American financial establishment!

This international financial cartel, [7] with its apparent unlimited power today to wage wars of its choice, be it economic, military, food, medicine, disease, or revolutionary, for “eroding it piece by piece”, cannot be tamed in the short term by any domestic means in America.

Some may rationally ponder that how is it, that such a long running global conspiracy can be kept alive across centuries and across geographies.

Noam Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such “conspiracies”, as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be termed a ‘global corporate conspiracy’.

I have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no global conspiracy by the world’s lions to eat up all the lambs on the planet. That is just the nature of the bestial predators when its “might defines right”. The only thing that occasionally deters such primacy is a collective natural response like the one observed in the “Battle at Kruger” park. [8]

Indeed, the concepts of “right or wrong”, “moral and immoral”, do not even exist among any primal predators, for one only behaves according to one’s nature. Such platitudes, if they could be argued by the lion or the snake for instance, would in fact surely be greatly disseminated to the lambs and the mice to make them an even easier morsel to acquire!

Thus we observe that from Plato to Nietzsche, from the philosopher-king to the ‘ubermensch’, all have argued the necessity of ruling upon the sheepish masses as the ‘divine’ imperative of the “enlightened ones”. Indeed, Zbigniew Brzezinski even sub-titled his seminal book “The Grand Chessboard” with the egotistical “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, merely extending that idea of ‘ubermensch’ rule from the most “enlightened ones”, to the most powerful sole-superpower!

The same theme exists among the “Chosen Peoples”, [9] to deem their primacy upon the goyem their inherent nature, their divine destiny. The ‘ubermensch’ are suckled these lessons in their mothers milk to acquire those imperatives across generations in perhaps the same way as the generations of corporate executives and CEOs who inherently know that they need to continually enhance the valuation of their company’s stock performance in a capitalist system.

So when these ‘divine’ beings behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space, across evolution or creation, are they being “conspiratorial”? In the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.

In the Ron Paul nomenclature, it is merely a shared “Conspiracy of Ideas”.

In the United States’ legal nomenclature, breaking of a “federal statue” by at least two or more persons working in collusion (and when caught), is defined as “criminal conspiracy” and “federal crime”. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, it is criminal whether or not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself. A conspiracy need only be proved by “circumstantial evidence” even “if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence”.

According to such legalism, smart conspirators, if powerful enough, could affect the enaction of conducive federal statues, or prevent the enaction of adverse ones, that would enable them to get away with many morally reprehensible systems and acts. The Federal Reserve System for instance, falls into this category. Similarly, bootlegging is a federal crime one decade, a respectable business the next! And internationally, it is the enaction of laws under WTO which defines what is criminal and what isn’t – not the raping and harvesting of developing nations that goes on under its conspiratorial rubric!

Thus suffice it to say, the word “conspiracy” even has legal semantics, albeit limited.

But the multitudinous connotations of this word do not stop there. It also has a ‘tin-hatted’ or ‘kookish’ implication in furtherance of the devilish art of political science based state-craft. This was indeed implied by Congressman Ron Paul in his afore-quoted speech when he stated regarding the North American Union: “These are real things, it’s not somebody made these up, it’s not a conspiracy, … So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy, …”. As analyzed in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “Dialog among Civilizations: Whytalksfail? Part-1”:

“And some of the best cloaking devices have been invented by the most brilliant minds – here is one for instance from Ezra Pound: “invent two lies and have the public keep arguing which one of them might be true”. Another is by Leo Strauss – the erudite teacher of the majority of the neo-cons – called “Noble Lies”. A third by the White House, often referred to as “plausible deniability”, okay may be it was invented by the DIA, the grand-daddy of all intelligence agencies. This thinly veiled euphemism for deception to protect the leadership if things go badly in covert-operations became public knowledge during the Iran-Contra scandal, the televised coverage of which had gripped the American nation for months, including myself. What are these [if not] conspiracies, if not covert-operations?”

Thus if it is axiomatically asserted that there is no such thing as a real conspiracy theory, then that really works wonderfully in the interest of the cloak-makers because it makes one forget the perspectives of history.

And this complex Machiavellian deception game bears exposing fully: invent two or more lies, not just one, and keep the good hearted well meaning peoples in the “populist democracy” occupied debating which one of them might be true, for it would hardly matter what conclusions they reached. And wherever they ended up, to perhaps yank one of the lies from underneath them by conclusively showing it to be false thus conveniently demonstrating a baseless “conspiracy theory” in order to keep that notion alive in the public imagination. This consequently delegitimizes in the public mind serious researchers’ efforts in uncovering any covert-operation while its secrecy is of paramount necessity. Afterwards, after faits accomplis, after statues of limitations expiring, it makes little difference if historians and con-fession artists make a pecuniary gain peddling what is inconsequential history to the newer evolving realpolitik du jour.

This is what was precisely happening with any serious investigations into how the towers fell on 911. And this is also precisely what my long time friend Harvey had asked me, whether I believed in this and that fantastic [conspiracy] theory as noted above, and [he] had quickly lumped every single 911 investigation with the bizarre, [packaged] all in one convenient easily dismissive ‘kookish’ category.”

So many complex semantics for the term “conspiracy theory” – it’s not just mere nomenclature – that this overview of its usefulness to state-craft was necessary in order to situate anything with such a bombastic title as “The Capitalist Conspiracy”, in its proper social-political context.

And an equally insightful and rational response to this question of long enduring conspiracy for world domination, is added to the mix by G. Edward Griffin in Excerpt-2:

“After a man has far more money than he possibly can spend for pleasures, what is left to excite him? For those with the ruling class mentality, the answer is power – raw power over other human beings. Money can buy such power only to a point, beyond that, politics is the sport, and world politics is the ultimate game.”

Thus Griffin had aptly noted: “The New World Order Is Not New”. It becomes a moot point what one might call this predatory behavior. The undeniable fact remains that world-government has been a long historical passion – of both the powerful, as well as the poet-philosophers!

Indeed, it has been a long-held cherished dream of many a thinker and scholar – not just the financial ruling-elite – going back to H.G. Wells’ “New World Order” and Bertrand Russell’s “Impact of Science on Society” in its more recent incarnations of early to mid 20th century.

And certainly it goes all the way back to at least poet laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson in the mid 19th century, to his 1842 amazingly prescient poem “Locksley Hall”.

This Tennyson poem has presciently, and very eloquently, captured the utopian single “universal law” giving world-government – a single federation of the world at the planetary level – in order to eliminate all deadly wars and squabbles among nation-states and peoples. Many throughout the ages have dismissed such righteous imagination of the poet-philosophers as mere utopian fodder for science fiction and literature. But indeed, it has also fueled the wet-dreams of the money-bags from the emperors of antiquity to the Rockefellers of modernity:

“For I dipt into the future far as human eye could see,

Saw the Vision of the world and the wonders that would be….

‘Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer and the battle flags were furl’d

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in Awe,

That the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.”

Both Lord Tennyson and H. G. Wells, surely only dreamed of a benign utopian planetary federation under a unified world-government – unless I have missed an Orwellian twist to their articulations – like the federation that most of us today in our mid-30s to mid-50s, grew up watching on the fictional ‘Star Trek’ television series on the scale of vast galaxies!

And in his book “New World Order”, H. G. Wells even outlined a manifesto, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” – a very sensible, nay, morally very remarkable, 10-point seeding Articles for drafting a planetary level equitable ‘social contract’ for all the peoples of the planet.

The visionary H. G. Wells honestly and passionately concluded:

“And if we, the virtuous democracies, are not fighting for these common human rights, then what in the name of the nobility and gentry, the Crown and the Established Church, the City, The Times and the Army and Navy Club, are we common British peoples fighting for?”

Quoted below, the enormously liberating force of Wells’ 10th Article, is a far cry from the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the United Nations, as well as similar declarations in the newer EU Constitutional framework of Human Rights. Wherein, there occurs a statement in each of the latter ones, whose real sense is the exact opposite, stripping away Rights “inherent in mankind” under various ‘doctrines of necessity’ as deemed expedient by the State. And doing so mainly under the age-old pretext of maintaining ‘security’. Compare to H. G. Wells’ version:

“No treaty and no law affecting these primary rights shall be binding upon any man or province or administrative division of the community, that has not been made openly, by and with the active or tacit acquiescence of every adult citizen concerned, either given by a direct majority vote of the community affected or through the majority vote of his publicly elected representatives. In matters of collective behaviour it is by the majority decision men must abide. No administration, under a pretext of urgency, convenience or the like, shall be entrusted with powers to create or further define offences or set up by-laws, which will in any way infringe the rights and liberties here asserted. All legislation must be public and definite. No secret treaties shall be binding on individuals, organisations or communities. No orders in council or the like, which extend the application of a law, shall be permitted. There is no source of law but the people, and since life flows on constantly to new citizens, no generation of the people can in whole or in part surrender or delegate the legislative power inherent in mankind.” (New World Order – H. G. Wells’ progressive version of this utopia)

It is in the above utopian context that the following frequently cited candid observation of H. G. Wells on the human condition, appearing in the same book – which is almost always taken out of context by those who quote it without actually reading the book – must be interpreted:

“When the struggle seems to be drifting defiantly towards a world social democracy there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people – will hate the New World Order – and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” (New World Order – H. G. Wells)

If H. G. Wells was a devious Orwellian character, there really would have been no reason for creating the inordinately commonsensical, rational, fair, and very moral “Declaration of the Rights of Man” which immensely empower breaking all bonds of voluntary servitude! [10]

But regardless, both Tennyson and Wells, and all the benign utopians they might represent throughout the ages who have shared in the lofty aspiration of world-government for all people’s betterment rather than just the ruling elite’s, might actually be a bit dismayed today at how their dreams of centuries and millennia, for all of mankind united as a single political microcosm equitably existing on planet earth, have been Orwellianlly hijacked.

The mechanisms for world-government which are presently rolling, and which anyone with even half a brain can easily perceive, will forcibly spell the end of the well known concept of independent nation-states through much bloodshed (that both Wells and Tennyson sought to avoid), and outright terminate any Charter of Human Rights that is not Orwellian!

Thus we see that the words like “peace” and “justice” are continually bandied about as justification, but only in their best Orwellian incantation, as in this 1975 statement by Henry Kissinger to the UN General Assembly:

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.”

Or as in this statement by Jimmy Carter during his 1976 Presidential campaign:

“We must replace balance of power politics with world order politics.”

Later on, as the President of the United States, in a February 14, 1977 speech, Jimmy Carter stated:

“I want to assure you that the relations of the United States with the other countries and peoples of the world will be guided during my own Administration by our desire to shape a world order that is more responsive to human aspirations. The United States will meet its obligation to help create a stable, just, and peaceful world order.”

The empirical evidence of course suggests otherwise. President Carter for instance, didn’t shy from “giving to the USSR its Vietnam War” on another people’s soil and in another people’s blood, even winning for himself, but not for his mastermind strategist who had made it all possible, the glamorously Orwellian, Nobel “Peace” Prize. The full dismantling of the theology behind Carter’s statement “We must replace balance of power politics with world order politics” has already been done in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “From Balance of Terror to Unilateral Terror on the Grand Chessboard!”.

Similarly, in October 1975, the same year that Henry Kissinger was making his Orwellian speech on “peace” and “justice” being “attainable” in the “new world order” at the UN, he also glibly endorsed the top-secret National Security Council Strategy Memorandum NSSM-200 that he had himself led the development of in the NSC since 1974. President Gerald Ford subsequently signed-off on White House’s Decision Memorandum NSDM 314, agreeing to the population control agenda for world’s most populous Least Developed Countries outlined by Kissinger. Though declassified in 1989 by the White House, and officially denied as it still being United States foreign policy, and its text being written in the language of the conspirators which appears harmless to the onlookers, the empirical evidence behind the veneer of benign sounding platitudes like “family planning”, once again, tell a different Malthusian story (also see Bertrand Russell here) – that of “Food Control Genocide”! Is the worldwide food shortage and starvation in the Global South today amidst the ostentatious opulence and astronomical profits of global agri-business in the West, manufactured, or merely brilliantly prescient as noted in NSSM 200 “we shall be watching people starve on television.”?

The empirical observation of ground realities suggest that population reduction is very much a universal part of the global agenda towards “universal law”, just as Kissinger had so Machiavellianly couched it in NSSM 200: “In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” Thus it is made to appear as just “happenstance”, rather than criminally deliberate.

For the purpose of highlighting the devilish nature of “avoid the appearance of coercion” to enable the uninitiated in accurately parsing a conspiratorial language which clearly aims at covertly strangulating developing nations while simultaneously making an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece [to] accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault”, Kissinger’s NSSM 200 the same year that CFR spoke of ending “national sovereignty”, identified some further “moral” considerations for future population reduction strategic planning in a concluding section titled “An Alternative View”:

The above basic strategy assumes that the current forms of assistance programs in both population and economic and social development areas will be able to solve the problem. There is however, another view, which is shared by a growing number of experts. It believes that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived. This holds that the severity of the population problem in this century which is already claiming the lives of more than 10 million people yearly, is such as to make likely continued widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes, and, in the words of C.P. Snow, we shall be watching people starve on television.

The conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.

This school of thought believes the following types of questions need to be addressed:

* Should the U.S. make an all out commitment to major limitation of world population with all the financial and international as well as domestic political costs that would entail?

* Should the U.S. set even higher agricultural production goals which would enable it to provide additional major food resources to other countries? Should they be nationally or internationally controlled?

* On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?

* Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?

* Should the U.S. seek to change its own food consumption patterns toward more efficient uses of protein?

* Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the U.S. and/or for others?

* Should the U.S. initiate a major research effort to address the growing problems of fresh water supply, ecological damage, and adverse climate?

While definitive answers to those questions are not possible in this study given its time limitations and its implications for domestic policy, nevertheless they are needed if one accepts the drastic and persistent character of the population growth problem. Should the choice be made that the recommendations and the options given below are not adequate to meet this problem, consideration should be given to a further study and additional action in this field as outlined above. (NSSM 200)

The present day New World Order of Lord Tennyson’s “universal law”, is slated to be ruled by the kind of Orwellian ‘law givers’ that could hardly have been imagined by Lord Tennyson, as the world manifestly descends into tyranny. Stalwartly led today by the new harbingers of the ‘utopian’ dreams of many in history, “the first, only, and last truly global superpower” initially inflicts these dreams upon her own peoples by ushering in its Police State! And it is also the final existential blueprint for the ‘Rights’ of all ‘lesser’ humanity as well!

This misanthropic path to humanity’s enslavement is actually prognosticated in the prolific writings and philosophical outlook of the most influential polymath of the 20th century, idolized by many a scholarly leftist peacenik, including my own teacher Noam Chomsky at MIT. A poster of this man used to hang in Chomsky’s office. The name of this misanthrope who has somehow succeeded in commanding the reputation as “man of peace” and lover of the disenfranchised through his “pugwash” and other “peace” efforts, is Bertrand Russell.

It is highly instructive to carefully examine Russell’s perspectives on the New World Order – in his own words instead of reading snippets of mostly out-of-context quotations on the internet as most are wont to do – from his insightful book “Impact of Science on Society”.

Bertrand Russell very presciently, amorally, disgustingly to some, calculatingly to others as per the diktats of rational “humanism” that is devoid of any religious-morality – and with the inevitability of any path taken to its logical conclusion – outlines what is transpiring today. Especially what has transpired since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and which has rapidly accelerated since that infernal ‘day of infamy’ – the “new pearl harbor” – can all be straightforwardly understood by reading Russell’s book.

This writing of Russell in the mid 20th century England, is enormously in synchrony with that disclosed by G. Edward Griffin in Excerpt-2, of the infamous founder of the “Order of the Illuminati” in Bavaria in the latter half of the 18th century:

“War has been, throughout history, the chief source of social cohesion; and since science began, it has been the strongest incentive to technical progress. Large groups have a better chance of victory than small ones, and therefore the usual result of war is to make States larger. In any given state of technique there is a limit to size. The Roman Empire was stopped by German forests and African deserts; the British conquests in India were halted by the Himalayas; the Napoleon was defeated by the Russian winter. And before the telegraph large empires tended to break up because they could not be effectively controlled from a center.

Communications have been hitherto the chief factor limiting the size of empires. In antiquity the Persians and the Romans depended upon roads, but since nothing traveled faster than a horse, empires became unmanageable when the distance from the capital to the frontier was very great. This difficulty was diminished by railways and the telegraph, and is on the point of disappearing with the improvement of the long-range bomber. There would now be no technical difficulty about a single world-wide Empire. Since war is likely to become more destructive of human life than it has been in recent centuries, unification under a single government is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race.

There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” (Impact of Science on Society)

Indeed, as misanthrope Russell succinctly observes, “the passions that inspire feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential”, and there “would now be no technical difficulty about a single world-wide Empire.”

And there of course, isn’t any technical difficulty today. Especially with the barbaric “imperial mobilization” towards “Full Spectrum Dominance” – outlined in the Pentagon’s strategy document Joint Vision 2020 and in PNAC’s concept document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – with a trillion-dollar Congressionally appropriated defense budget every two years, and the inexplicable disappearance of at least $2.4 trillion dollars from the Pentagon books reported just one day before 911. Zbigniew Brzezinski wasn’t being original at all in his book the ‘Grand Chessboard’ when he wrote that in the absence “of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being”, and “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat”, the American “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”!

It is highly instructive to scrutinize the rationale in Bertrand Russell’s conception of a world-government, for it not only mirrors the unfolding grotesque reality of today, but also appears to constitute its essential philosophical underpinning to give it a veneer of ‘scientific and political respectability’. It comes across straightforwardly in Chapter 7 of the afore-cited book, where Russell answers the question that he himself poses: “Can a Scientific Society be Stable?”

In a nutshell, Russell suggests that only with birth-control and strategic population planning (including drastic measures – Ibid. page 116), can mankind survive in a scientific world that is marked with rising disparity among nations, each having their own strengths in good times, and weaknesses in bad ones. And Russell therefore logically concludes that the only viable and equitable solution is the global one, a world-government that can equitably distribute and share resources during troubled times! And he sums it up as “These considerations prove that a scientific society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.”

Ask any knowledgeable ruling elite today, and were they to candidly confide in you, this is the scientific reason they will provide for their quest for world-government to mask their lust for conquest! This is also what comes across in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970 classic “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era”! He is backed by David Rockefeller who set up him up as the first Executive Director of the new CFR off-shoot, the Trilateral Commission. It was David Rockefeller who enabled Brzezinski’s role as the National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, and in all likelihood, also selected that unknown peanut farmer from among the many members of CFR for that highest office. Rockefeller propelled an intellectual like Brzezinski into great prominence (while himself staying in the background) because the latter was to enable the planning and execution of the elite’s rise to world-government finally in this “Technetronic Era”!

Today, some thirty odd years later, Brzezinski openly strategizes for one of the two 2008 American Presidential candidates, and his own son does it for the other. Between the two – “elect” whomsoever you want! They both lead to the Capitalist Conspiracy of world-government!

Finally, Bertrand Russell’s most insightful logical observation in the quoted passage above is also the key to understanding what is transpiring since 911 worldwide. The citizens worldwide losing their civil rights with new draconian laws ostensibly enacted to protect them from the ‘terrorists':

“There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government … It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force”.

Yes indeed, “world government could only be kept in being by force”, especially when it is also not supposed to be benign for the vast majority of ‘lesser’ humanity. Bertrand Russell’s shrewd psychological insights match the descent into Police State of the Western democracies beginning with the UK, EU, US, and soon, NAU.

This is the scholarly marriage of political philosophy and the Capitalist Conspiracy in the best mold of Machiavelli’s Prince, each at their very best! Imagining what’s in store for the rest of the “subjects” doesn’t take much imagination!

And if one is to believe the late great filmmaker Aaron Russo [11] in “America: From Freedom to Fascism”, the Rockefellers – a clan representative of the financial and other enormously wealthy elite – have it all worked out to misanthropically herd the sheep of the planet to their destiny!

So is there an enduring Capitalist Conspiracy for world government? You be the judge! [12]

And if your answer is yes, then your next quest must be to find out if you can survive it!

Title: The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking

Conspiracy, one of the darkest words in the language of man. Yet there is hardly a single page of history that doesn’t partially reveal the deadly eye of conspiracy at work.

It was a conspiracy that directed Brutus against Caesar in the Roman Senate on the Ides of March.

It was a conspiracy that plotted the betrayal of West Point by Benedict Arnold during the American Revolution.

It was a conspiracy that led John Wilkes Booth to the assassination of President Lincoln on Good Friday 1865.

The past record of man is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots, and betrayals in war.

The tentative conspiracy has been a dominant force in all history. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have began to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea, merely as a “conspiratorial view” of history. (1:03)

The purpose of this presentation is to show that the conspiratorial view of history, particularly of recent history is the correct view. … (47 minutes)

The purpose of this presentation is to show that the conspiratorial view of history, particularly of recent history is the correct view. That there is a secret and powerful combine at work today; that it constitutes the unseen government of the United States; and that it properly can be identified, as, The Capitalist Conspiracy!

During the past 200 years, while the peoples of the world, gradually, were winning their political freedom from monarchies, the major banking families of the world, were nullifying the trend toward representative government, by setting up new dynasties of political control. But behind the scenes, in the form of international financial Combines.

These banking dynasties had learned that all governments, whether they be monarchies or democracies, must borrow money in times of emergency. And that by providing such funds from their own private resources, with strings attached of course, gradually, they could bring both kings and democratic leaders, under their control. (01:14)

Dr. Quigley believes that people should be more familiar with the identities of these clever banking dynasties. They include such names as Barring, Hambros, Lazzard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Selingman, The Speyers, Mirabauld, Mallet, Fould, Rothschild, & Morgan.

It should be noted that while the Rothschilds and other Jewish families cooperated together in these ventures, this was by no means a Jewish monopoly as some have alleged. Men of finance of many nationalities and many religious and non-religious backgrounds, collaborated together to create this super-structure of hidden power.

Its essence was not race nor religion nor nationality. It was simply a passion for control over other human beings. (2:05)

The net effect is to create money out of nothing. Lend it to the government, and then collect interest on it. A rather profitable transaction, to say the least.

For example, in 1694, International Banker, William Patterson, obtained the charter of the Bank of England, and the power over England’s money system fell into private hands.

In a boastful mood, Patterson said: “The bank hath benefit of interest of all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

230 years later, Reginald McKenna, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: “The banks can, and do, create money; and they who control the credit of the nation, direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands, the destiny of the people.”

In the United States, it was inevitable that the international banking interests, would attempt to establish the same kind of private monopoly over the money system, that they had achieved in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. (03:10)

The same formula would be used: make it look like a government operation, but keep the control in private hands.

John D Rockefeller had purchased the Chase Bank, and his brother William, bought the National City Bank of New York. The Rockefeller Chase Bank was later merged with Warburg’s Manhattan Bank, to form the Chase Manhattan, one of the most powerful financial combines in the world today!

Acting in concert with the Morgan Banking dynasty, they spent untold millions of dollars to promote legislation that would grant to them, a private franchise over this nation’s money system.

To sell this scheme to the voters, the monopolists created the propaganda line, that the proposed banking law some how would work against the monopolies. Politicians took up the cry “banking reform”, and “down with Wall Street”.

And then, to make it look convincing, the financial tycoons publicly pretended to oppose the measure, all the while financing it behind the scenes. (04:12)

On December 22, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act, finally was passed into law. Something known as the Federal Reserve System came into being, and with it, total control over the nation’s money, fell into private hands!

The CFR from behind the scenes has dominated this nation for decades.

CFR members include top executives and journalists for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Daily News, Harpers, Look, Time, Life, Newsweek, US News and World Report, CBS, NBC, MGM.

They include directors of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund.

They include Presidents Hoover, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon; Secretaries of States Titinius, Acheson, Dulles, Hurder, and Rusk; a fantastic percentage of the President’s Cabinet, Under Secretaries, the Federal Reserve Board, Ambassadors to other countries, Supreme Court Justices, and presidential advisors.

The average American has never heard of the CFR. Yet it is, the unseen Government of the United States. (05:25)

After a man has far more money than he possibly can spend for pleasures, what is left to excite him? For those with the ruling class mentality, the answer is power – raw power over other human beings. Money can buy such power only to a point, beyond that, politics is the sport, and world politics is the ultimate game.

These men are striving to create a world super-state, with the expectation that from behind the scenes, they will be the ones who will rule. Not free enterprise capitalism, but big government is the conspiracy’s life force.

World government is its ultimate goal.

But what is the best way to sell big government, and then world government, to a people like ours, historically devoted to an independent republic of limited powers?

The answer is simple. Deliberately create problems. And then offer only those solutions that result in the expansion of government. Create conditions so frightful at home and abroad, that the abandonment of personal liberties and national sovereignty, will appear as a reasonable price for a return to domestic tranquility and world peace. (06:40)

If those who seek world dominion can stimulate leftist mobs into violent confrontation with local law enforcement, and also provide exhaustive news coverage, so that the entire nation can see and tremble, then the peaceful and freedom loving majority can be programmed to accept a vast expansion of government powers, and even a national police force, offered supposedly to end the violence.

If those who seek world dominion can raise the spectre of an enemy, armed to the teeth with superior atomic weapons on the verge of launching a nuclear holocaust, and also offer world-government as the prevention, then millions of Americans can be programmed to accept the loss of national sovereignty, as our last best hope for peace.

This is the meaning of pressure from above and below. To put over police state measures at home, they need chaos, crime, and anarchy in the streets. To sell the idea of world-government, they need the constant threat of nuclear war! (7:44)

In Bavaria, the year 1786, acting on a tip from an informer, police raided the home of a prominent attorney named von Zwack. They seized documents and letters revealing that he was a high ranking member of an extensive conspiracy called “The Order of The Illuminati”.

Over the centuries, forms of the word “Illuminati”, meaning the enlightened ones, have been used by many secret sects and occult organizations. Most prominent among these, were the Illumbrados of Spain, Guerinets of France, and the Roshaniya of Afghanistan.

But these were concerned primarily with psychological and spiritual objectives, a proclaimed inner wisdom, and mind-mastery of the secrets of the universe.

The conspiracy exposed in Bavaria was of an entirely different order. (08:36)

The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776, by Adam Weishaupt, a Professor at Ingolstadt University. Weishaupt obviously had been a serious student of the occult, for many of its bizarre features and symbols were incorporated into his organization.

The destruction of all religion, replaced by the worship of reason or humanism, and the destruction of all independent governments, replaced by a new world order, a world government, ruled from behind the scenes by the illuminated ones! (09:08)

Conspiracy as it operates at the highest level in the United States today, rests upon two solid foundations, and enjoys the protection of shelter. If we could knock out its foundations, it would collapse. And if we could strip away its shelter, it would wither away and die.

The shelter is secrecy. The foundations are big government, and manipulation of money!

No conspiracy can stand the light of exposure. No conspiracy can rule the masses without the tool of an extensive government bureaucracy. And certainly no capitalist conspiracy can long survive without control over the nation’s money.

Expose the conspiracy, reduce the size of government, return our money to a standard that cannot be manipulated. This must be our response. (0:57)

In the limited time available, we have attempted to demonstrate that the conspiratorial view of history, particularly of recent history, is the correct view.

Let us summarize now, seven major conclusions.

One: There is and has been for some time, a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the world. A conspiracy that virtually owns the money systems of the major non-communist nations. This monopoly is protected by the power of the respective governments. And is used to perpetuate the conspiracy’s vast wealth, by the creation of money out of nothing.

Two: In the United States, this monetary fraud is perpetuated through the Federal Reserve System. Although the Executive Branch theoretically has some control over this system through occasional appointments, in reality, it is the system and those behind it, who control the Executive Branch. (1:55)

Three: The Capitalist Conspiracy, in this country, surfaces to public view, in the form of the semi-secret, Council on Foreign Relations. Its members exercise their control over the nation, through government, tax-exempt foundations, centers of education, and the mass communications media.

Four: On the surface, the Capitalist Conspiracy appears to oppose Communism. It spends billions of dollars in spectacular military displays of anti-communism all around the world. But never to the extent of seriously harming the enemy, and certainly not to the extent of defeating it. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Conspiracy always has nourished and aided Communism both at home, and abroad. It does this not because it is pro-communist, but because it needs the appearance of a formidable foe, and the chaos by-product of a managed conflict, to advance its own goal of totalitarian world-government. (03:01)

Five: There is much evidence indicating that the capitalist and communist conspiracies both are directed by a single master conspiracy which may have continuity with ‘The Order of the Illuminati’, which was founded 200 years ago. But this historical question is not nearly as important as the immediate question of what can be done about it today.

Six: As for our response, we must begin to dismantle the conspiracy’s machine of big government. … (4:05)

Seven: We must reduce the Federal Reserve System to a service function of clearing checks between banks only. Merely turning the system as it stands over to the Federal government, as some have suggested, will not solve the problem. The same people would control it either way. The root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing. And the insiders could do that today just as easily directly through government, as they do through the Federal Reserve System. The ultimate solution is to prevent anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply! … (4:47)

Eight: We must expose the conspiracy to public view. If some how, every American could be made aware of the facts contained in this presentation, if it were possible to circumvent the establishment’s channels of mass communication, and carry this message person to person to our friends and neighbors and fellow club members, the conspiracy would collapse like a house of cards.

Yes the hour is late. But it is not too late if we are realistic in our efforts.

As Americans we can still speak-out without fear of imprisonment.

We can still join together into patriotic groups to multiply our effectiveness.

We can still challenge the establishment’s candidates.

We still retain that remnant of power to regain control of own government. (5:38)

Economics and Money aren’t supposed to be as abstruse as it is made out to be, and nor does it take a Ph.D. from M.I.T. to realize that one is being taken for a sodomized ride on the Capricorn of economics gibberish. It is the responsibility of every denizen of the world to understand how humanity is being herded into global debt-enslavement and a centrally managed world-government, baby-step at a time, by manufacturing deliberate crisis and then proposing the next baby-step as its solution or fait accompli. Each baby-step erodes away some aspect of national sovereignty. 911 helped setup the global police state as a proposed solution to ‘terrorism’ – a manufactured product – to create the sine qua non mechanisms for world-government. “World government could only be kept in being by force”, as Bertrand Russell had put it.

The latest financial crisis is designed to systematically create a central world-banking system, as a proposed solution to ‘bad loans’ – again a manufactured product – to be managed by a global banking cartel under legal sanction. “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws”, as the Rothschild banking scions boldly narrate in almost every generation. Today, the cumulative world debt is in uncountable trillions, and there is no nation on earth which is not beholden to some banking cartel, be it the WB-IMF tag team of economic mercenaries preying upon the resource-rich nations of Global South (see John Perkins), or the private central banks lending parasites doing the same to their richer brethren in the Global North (see Money as Debt).

On top of them both, sit the same handful of private banking families in their interlocking relationships, protected by their own hand-crafted instruments of commerce, trade-treaties, and their hand-picked political governance which creates for them the legal sanctions necessary for the entire global racket based on unpayable debt to flourish. Once a nation, like a person, can’t pay its debts, demand for the proverbial “pound of flesh” is as convincing as making an offer one can’t refuse.

In contrast to the Neanderthal gangster Al Capone, or Michael Corelone in the blockbuster movie ‘The Godfather’, who weren’t smart enough to change the laws of the land in favor of their criminal enterprises and therefore, the state’s policing apparatus could be relied upon to eventually take parasites like them down, these banksters connivingly write the very laws of the land in their favor. They own, or control through proxy, the media, the legislatures, the executives, the think-tanks, the foundations, all levers of power, good and bad loans, and discourse itself, in pretty much all major societies – from G7 to G20 (excepting to some extent BRIC, Venezuela, and Iran) – cleverly hiding their own role behind the scenes in constructing their global fiefdom.

That aspiration was unabashedly and boldly re-stated by bankster James Warburg in 1950 to the US Senate – the son of bankster Paul Warburg who not only founded the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, but was the key architect of the Federal Reserve System under the clandestine auspices of Senator Nelson Aldrich at Jekyll Island in 1910 – “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

And that precise “consent” is being manufactured, as we speak, baby-step at a time! This ain’t no ‘tin-hatted’ conspiracy of the UFO’s taking over as the ‘body-snatchers’, or Orson Wells’ famous dramatization on radio of H. G. Wells’ novel “The War of the Worlds”. That Halloween eve special in 1938 – as an experiment in mass psychology to observe the response to fear – panicked New York city!

A bona fide long-running elitist conspiracy for world government that is rapidly reaching fruition today within the windows of opportunity created by manufactured crises – “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order”, noted David Rockefeller – is writ large in the ex post facto con-fessions and deeds of its vainglorious key architects themselves. Indeed, witness this eloquent boast from the bankster, in his own 2002 ‘Memoirs': “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (pg. 405)

A penetrating understanding of manufactured crises as Machiavellian harbingers of calculated change, may be gleaned in Isaac Asimov’s science fiction classic known as the ‘Foundation Trilogy’. It is not accidental that foundations, both in real life, and in art, are instrumental harbingers of imperial change. This truism is attested to by the evidence gathered by Norman Dodd for the Congressional Reece committee in 1953-54, as described below. Wikipedia notes of the art version, that, “According to Asimov, the premise [of Foundation] was based on ideas set forth in Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,”!

The only protection against these parasites – whom America’s courageous President, Andrew Jackson, referred to as “a den of vipers” – is for ordinary peoples first learning what has been kept hidden from them, before it is too late. For indeed, tortuous control systems are being put in place globally at an accelerated pace, and overturning them after fait accompli would require nothing less than a new ‘Moses’ powerfully proclaiming to the new ‘Pharaohs': “let my people go!” Last time I checked, god of chosen peoples had unmercifully relegated both the old and new prophets to the enactment of miracles only on the silverscreen for the entertainment of the masses, as its ordained New World Order is brought into beguiling existence under the radar screen of most plebes. What now sayist the plebe?

For those who know nothing of these matters, Project Humanbeingsfirst has compiled an ‘essentials’ self-study bibliography of videos, books, documents, news reports, and its own forensics reports, for both, beginners frantically searching for an understanding of what’s happening to them as they lose their shirts and their skirts to Wall Street, as well as for advanced non-researcher white-collar professionals whose job it is to understand money, but who actually remain no less ignorant than the plebes. All only suffer its want, or enjoy its superfluity, but no one has the time or the inclination to ponder its creation, or which hands control it. Most believe, as did this scribe once, that the government creates and controls money. Please see the self-study bibliographic guide: Monetary Reform Bibliography – A self-study guide for uncovering the agendas behind the economics gibberish. [a1]

The Ignorance of the Learned

It has been rather disturbing for this scribe to continually rediscover that even well educated persons from among the ruling elite themselves, CEOs of corporations with fancy MBA degrees, venture capitalists with CA degrees, economists with Ph.D., and financial geniuses on Wall Street with degrees in mathematics and physics from Caltech and M.I.T. – never mind engineers and scientists perpetually kept too busy to bring their rational forensic acumen to bear upon such mundane existential matters as money, economy, geopolitics and empire – do not fully understand the mechanics of money, nor its direct manufactured relationship with economic booms-and-collapses, war on terror, and the broader calculated agenda for world government. All feel daunted by the economics gibberish which surrounds any discussion of it.

It is also painfully obvious that even the so called “expert” economists, and Nobel Laureates, do not fully grasp all the issues regarding money. Because they still can’t manage the economy despite their Nobel Prizes, and keep getting run over by the exact same inability to link together artificial booms and speculations fueled by cheap credit that is created out of thin air as national debt, predictable busts, tightening of credit, loss of confidence, and ultimate windfall for the handful of wealthy in whose hands all the wreckage of prosperity gets transferred pennies to the dollar, consolidating enormous wealth in fewer and fewer hands at the end of it all. And they still can’t call it correctly, as evidenced from the statements of the famous 92 year old economist Anna Schwartz – coauthor of Milton Friedman’s classic text on monetary history of the United States – and all the rest of the economists quoted by Lendman. [a2] More examples can be found in “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?”. And as is the case for the common man who least understands any of this, it could be for these learned economists as well, that it’s simply because of the overloaded semantics and secrecy which surrounds this most essential and profound human invention since fire.

None among them apparently knows the money mechanics and how it astronomically enriches the private bankers for doing absolutely no production work in society other than ledger-entry, and none has any appreciation for the overarching “forces that drive them”. For surely, as Bernard Lewis had observed in another terrorism context, a study of motivations can lead to a better understanding of why the financial terror crises fueled by newer deadly toys and things – what Warren Buffet called the “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction” and predictable “time bombs” [a3] – keep getting repeated under the very noses of those chartered to explicitly prevent them, leaving the much lauded economists from prestigious institutions none the wiser. But it is perhaps also more credible to argue, that they – the profoundly learned economists – deliberately promulgate economics gibberish in the service of their ‘ubermensch’ masters. The empire needs its own knowledge-scions, just as it needs its own media, its own presses, its own propaganda and spin machinery, and its own military-industrial-academe complex. Who sits atop all of this? Who funds all this? Who benefits from all of this? Does the United States – its economy and its peoples in worst shape today in this first decade of the information age than they ever were since the Great Depression years of the industrial age?

So, clearly it wasn’t just for the “full spectrum dominance” of the nation-state of the United States, for which the sole superpower was being coerced into exercising its Project for the New American Century under the disguise of ‘war on terror’. It was not just for the hegemony of the sole superpower that Zbigniew Brzezinski – an Executive Director of the globalist Trilateral Commission which David Rockefeller founded – had penned ‘The Grand Chessboard’ and made it available so publicly, like its PNAC twin.

While clearly America bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, and may yet nuclear bomb Iran and Pakistan, not to mention enter into a chicken-style nuclear confrontation with Russia, but what fuels this asininity? Who benefits?

The American peoples as well as their nation-state are certainly the very visible losers in the final analysis – even at the cost of decimated ‘lower-civilizations’ and their unfortunate children of lesser gods, many more will follow in those footsteps, and only they will see the end of war being waged upon humanity – going bankrupt and trillions of dollars in debt as they are. See the latest national debt figures in “The entrenched notion of Public Debt in America – will take a gestalt shift to overcome!”.

Who holds this national debt at its very top, and for which, every American tax-payer perpetually pays interest on? Aaron Russo in his documentary “America: from Freedom to Fascism”, makes the astonishing revelation of how private central banking under the Federal Reserve System, and the federal income tax, are joined together at the hip as a congenital birth defect. There is some discussion of the possible illegitimacy of the federal income tax and the IRS in the film, but that’s a red herring which distracts from the fact that it could be just as legal as the Federal Reserve System, and still remain a premeditated congenital birth defect devilishly crafted to ensnare the unwary public into paying gratuitous interest on the issuance of their own national currency! [a4]

Something far more insidious has been under construction using just one primal axiom of political science: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”, the devilish words of David Ben Gurion who presided over the leadership of the newly acquired land for the Jews at the expense of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants exactly 60 years ago. The same maxim is being deployed for world conquest at the expense of the rest of its indigenous inhabitants.

At the top of that pyramid, sit the moneychangers of modernity. For money is an even bigger existential necessity today in the producer-consumer global paradigm of high finance than it ever was in the past, even though the imperial coin is as old as mankind!

And yet just the fact that one has to come by the accurate understanding of “Money” only as a forensic detective assembling a jigsaw puzzle, and primarily from empirical analysis of widely disparate data and events, is very revealing of the secretive role of its affluent creators.

The power of money creation in private hands lies at the root of all evil. A forensic recognition of this blatant fact and the concomitant direct full spectrum public assault upon it, will lead to the termination of all the wet dreams for world government by hectoring hegemons of all stripes. It will also lead to the immediate termination of all the manufactured mechanisms employed for achieving it, namely, the fiction of ‘war on terror’ and the manufactured economic collapse. Furthermore, a lineup before a court appointed legal firing squad with confiscation of all wealth should create a reasonably effective deterrence example for the future.

So let’s no longer be counted among the ignorant, the co-opted, and those who, quite bewilderingly, “scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle” [a5] waxing platitudes against an indomitable foe out for their enslavement.

To emphasize the relevance of learning from history to avert a tortuous future, take for example, the remarkable 1982 video interview of Mr. Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin, cited in the Project Humanbeingsfirst’s Monetary Reform Bibliography. It can be watched here.

As a member of the “Morgan Bank” during the Great Depression, and later a chief investigator in 1953-54 for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece’s Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (the Reece Committee), Norman Dodd makes some extraordinary revelations on video. He appears to be an unusually credible person, unlike many other plebeian detractors of aggregated wealth – scion of wealth and pamper, educated at Andover and Yale, insider to banking and Wall Street investment – not a ‘tin-hatted’ conspiracy theorists alluded to in the main discourse (“The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government”).

After the crash of 1929, Norman Dodd says he had “rendered” a report on the stock market crash to his bank’s superiors, and according to the paraphrase of the Morgan bank officials that was rehearsed back to him: “Norm what you’re saying is we should return to sound banking … We will never see sound banking in the United States again.”

Mr. Dodd further reveals that the officials rehearsed “chapter and verse” to explain that point and stated:

“Since the end of world war one we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests, and they are so prevalent inside this country that they can never be resolved.”

With that as the backdrop, this is what Norman Dodd relates of a conversation he had with the President of the tax-exempt Ford Foundation in 1954, as part of his Congressionally mandated investigation of tax-exempt foundations:

“Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of the foundations such as ourselves.” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on and said: “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations generously support Communist causes in the United States?

NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.

ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?

NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes.

Another ominous thread in the interview is when Dodd reveals of what his lead investigator discovered in the minutes-books of Carnegie Endowment for Peace. According to Norman Dodd, the following was recorded on the old-fashioned dictaphone machine by Katherine Casey as she was browsing the minutes-books in the CEP library:

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.

So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.

Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that’s a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history. […]

Mr. Norman Dodd had also revealed another interesting little known fact in a prior year, in his testimony on “Regionalism” in 1978 before a committee created by the Illinois legislature. He disclosed the fact that a brand new constitution for the American continent had already been constructed as a super-state – what today in its baby-step incarnation is called the North American Union – and it has been patiently waiting in the wings, like the Patriot Act, to be sprung at the opportune time just like the oppressive police-state legislation was sprung upon the American public within a few weeks of 911. Witness this exchange: [a6]

Mr. Dodd: […] Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you… oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation’s grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally new Constitution which has already been drawn up, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago. [previous testimony] […]

Rep. Lucco : Fine. You’ve answered my question. Now, another thing. You took us back to 1908, and I came on the scene in 1912, about the time of the Balkan Wars, which you alluded to, and World War I. Now, today, and you said that we actually created — or “they”, whoever “they” are – actually created the situation of a war. Now that we have the…

Mr. Dodd : Wait, now. You deserve to know who the “they” are.

Rep. Lucco : I was going to ask you that.

Mr. Dodd : The “they” in this instance are the Trustees. . . were the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They were men who were prominent lawyers in New York; men like Nicholas Murray Butler, the head of Columbia University; also, and subsequently, Allen and Foster Dulles, as attorneys — that caliber of gentlemen.

[CDR Note: “Global Tyranny …Step by Step”, by William Jasper, quotes Allen W. Dulles from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 – New York: The Foreign Policy Association, Sept-Oct, 1946- page 46… “There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”]

Rep. Lucco : Then I’m trying to collate what you are talking about — 1912 — with 1978, the meeting at Camp David, the problems in the Middle East, the Sino-, or Chinese-Russian situation–are they now getting us ready for a third world war?

Mr. Dodd: My answer to that, sir, is that they have set forces in motion, and these forces cannot help but culminate in World War III. I happen to personally believe that it is possible to prevent it from working out that way, but I’m alone in my beliefs.

Rep. Hudson: Apparently you’re not alone, Mr. Dodd. […]

Rep Hudson : Mr. Dodd, I have one question. You mentioned a proposed new Constitution, or federal charter, for this country, sort of waiting in the wings, you might say.

Mr. Dodd : Yes.

Rep Hudson: Is that the one… I have heard tell of a Tugwell type. Is that the one you refer to?

Mr. Dodd : That’s it, sir.

Rep. Hudson : Thank you. All right, well, thank you very much, Mr. Dodd. We are grateful for your being here.

Now, if Rep. Lucco of the Illinois legislature in 1978 can endeavor to “collate what you are talking about — 1912 — with 1978”, surely a sensibly learned person today might try to collate the same to 2008? How might one forensically bring to bear all such historical knowledge, including revelations by Norman Dodd, on the present financial crisis and the role of the Federal Reserve System? How does that relate to the blatantly undisguised drive for world government today? How does that relate to 911? But no! Not the Federal Reserve System Chairman, nor any of the Nobel Prize winning economists waxing more economics gibberish, will go there! [a7]

And forget about the mainstream presses, erudite pundits, and even lauded dissent-space politicians like Ron Paul, [a8] and intellectuals like Noam Chomsky [a9] [a10] and Howard Zinn [a11] – forever only rehearsing the crimes of the “rogue state” and 911 its “blowback” – doing so either. Their laudable emphasis on the facts that are visible like the American F16s and Apache Helicopters bombing civilians, or the crash of the stock market as a result of casino capitalism, and lamentable silence on the ones which are not readily visible like that which remains shrouded in conspiratorial secrecy for an overarching agenda and must be forensically uncovered from rational thinking and analysis, or official narratives that are required to be kept intact, only ends up circuitously leading their own fawning flock, amidst great applause, to the pastures dutifully bounded by the same fences as the mainstream scholars! [a12] [a13] Their intellectualism, apparently, only extends to the government mandated axioms of “Bin Laden” and “Al-Qaeeda”, which are most obligingly, implicitly retained by them in their very learned dissenting discourses that valiantly document and courageously standup to the crimes of their own nation. [a14] [a15] And these intellectual are this scribe’s own respected teachers! [a16]

Perhaps all these gadfly historians and men and women of letters who mainly delight in rehashing histories which are already faits accomplis, and in waxing moralizing sermons on being the privileged minority to whom “Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, … through which the events of current history are presented to us”, [a17] be graciously reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s famous maxim “We are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibility for our future”.

As Noam Chomsky once wrote, and quite correctly too, that “it takes a sentence to repeat lies and deceit, while it takes considerably more space to unravel them.” [a18] Elsewhere, he also wisely noted “It’s always a good idea to start by asking about the facts. It’s whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute, is that true?” [a19] Fortunately, many dedicated and quite ordinary peoples have learnt from Noam Chomsky’s teachings, and have already done just that. They have diligently asked about the facts for all the official myths which are axiomatically rehearsed “very confidently” from the highest to the lowest pulpits across the land, and some of their truly intellectual works are cited in the Monetary Reform Bibliography.

The reader is also invited to ask the same question, “is that true”, of the ‘who-dunit’ axiom of the first 911 which “very confidently” narrated of an invasion from abroad; of the axiom of ‘macro economics inevitability of this financial meltdown’ that Warren Buffet termed “an economic Pearl Harbor”; and finally, of the axiom of ‘the only solution for avoiding both types of 911s in the future, is world government controlled by the private central banks at the top of the pyramid’. The same pyramid-top which keeps the watchful-eye upon the world from the back of the world’s reserve currency, the one dollar bill! It is an important question to ask, who effectively controls this reserve currency? For their identity is the identity of the watchful eye, the real emperors of the world! Upon their feet, lie the seeds of all the crimes against humanity in modern times. And upon whose beck and call, lies the “imperial mobilization” of the sole superpower state to preside over its own calculated demise, to create ‘one world’!

Armed with all this analysis from many disparate sources and a rational long-view perspective which connects all the dots – perhaps a weekend’s worth of self-study – one can finally judge for oneself what is deliberate disinformation, and what are the indisputable facts of the matter.

Thus, at least, one is now trivially able to judge for oneself, the worth of half-truths based disinformation masterpieces which deceive by omission rather than outright lies, like:

But even more importantly, now one has sufficient knowledge, as well as perspective from many sources, to ask the overarching meta question:

Why should there be any need for super-abundance of non-information, and at best, disinformation – the profound ignorance of the learned – on such a transparent matter as the Federal Reserve System, and on such a mundane issue like money which everyone in society needs existentially, like air and water, in the first place?

If one ponders upon that question first, either agrees or disagrees with the proposition that this subject is shrouded in secrecy and obfuscation which is what creates mythologies, half-truths, and even outright lies – not to mention the trillion dollar Bailout of Wall Street [a20] that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson now also recommends for other nations through a coordinated central banks’ attack upon all the world’s peoples to ensnare them all in further debt – then the rest follows on why detective forensic skills are either needed, or not, to tell the difference between propagandists shilling for their paymasters, ‘tin-hatted’ conspiracy theorists indulging their imaginations, ‘technique of infamy’ and manufactured red herrings, and the unarguable real facts of the matter.

Answering this question first, can further enable one to look at solutions-spaces more critically without being fooled. But only after the problem-space, and its awesome power to corrupt and to confuse, has been first well understood. In this regard, humanity owes a great debt of gratitude to Ezra Pound, America’s most ignored poet and thinker, for explaining the specialized version of the dialectics of deception – the ‘technique of infamy’.

Thus We Fail as a “focus group”!

To begin exploring the solutions-space, the following websites might be useful. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse, or censure, anyone of them, and remains largely agnostic when they make sense – for the real challenge lies elsewhere. A preliminary analysis of two main proposals, the Gold-Standard (Mises Institute) favored by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, which does not make any sense, and the Greenbacks, (thought to be) favored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, which does make sense, can be found in the Monetary Reform Bibliography.

Richard Cook also pontificates yet another solution-space in his just released 2008 book “We Hold These Truths – The Hope of Monetary Reform”. His concept, in its preliminary form, inspired by the work of the late C.H. Douglas of a century ago called Social Credit, was published in 2007 here and here. [a21] The late Dr. Edward Hamlyn at the British Association for Monetary Reform, also left the world his gift of the 2007 edition of “The New Money Text Book” which can be read here. [a22] The American Monetary Institute has their own Monetary Reform Act drafted here. [a23] The 3-1/2 hour video, The Money Masters, in its concluding last 45 minutes, also explores a rational solution-space and makes specific recommendations for national monetary reform. [a24] The video also points to an alternative local solutions-space for individual communities, that of local ‘community-currency’, as a sustainable money system to fulfill local trading needs debt-free. Some Europeans, apparently, tend to agree with this community-currency prescription. There already are, or will soon be, 65 regional currencies in operation alongside the EU. One of these currencies, made defunct, was based on the ideas of Silvio Gesell in the now almost century old classic, “The Natural Economic Order”: [a25]

‘Austria’s Tyrolean community of Wörgl launched a scheme based on his theories, in 1932, reputed to have slashed unemployment at the height of the Depression. It was watched by Keynes and Irving Fisher, who saw a fast-depreciating currency as a possible answer to the 1930s “liquidity trap”.

The Wörgl experiment was declared illegal by Austria’s central bank when a further 200 other communities launched copycat currencies, threatening the authority of the state. Though article 35 of the Bundesbank’s founding law forbids the circulation of “quasi-currencies”, the experiments are being treated as a harmless eccentricity.’

As one can easily glean from this quick survey, there is a surfeit of monetary reform proposals. If only there was some way to bring them all together on one common platform!

Project Humanbeingsfirst encourages the readers to first endeavor to fully comprehend the problem-domain, and what entrenched systems of power inhibit all debt-free solutions from emerging, before jumping into the solutions-domain and spending time on the treadmill of inefficacy – like the antiwar movement. The failure to recognize that power only respects power, otherwise it is merely a “focus group”, [a26] has been the latter’s undoing. This certainly does not preclude understanding the technical domain itself, including the local community needs to transact business at the individual and local business level; understanding the national needs to monetize the GDP and transact business at the national institution level, including collect taxes and pay for services; and understanding the global needs, not only for international trade, but also as a stable repository for valuation of public and private assets, both global and local, and as the calibration of a fair standard for measuring wealth in vastly disparate levels of industrial development and/or natural wealth, in rich and poor nations.

Some will surely argue that the latter needs a ‘global currency’. If they were to do so, they would fall right into the trap of the banksters. The afore-cited monetary reform bibliography contains a culled selection of recent pertinent news reports which plainly betray the globalist motivation of the International bankster cartel who wish to use the present manufactured financial crisis to lead the world’s gullible public to precisely that conclusion-space. To be managed centrally, by a world cartel of International private central banks, which would be the first and last nail in the national-sovereignty of all nations. “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws”,was not stated in mere vanity by the Rothschild scions.

Based on the knowledge and forensic touchstones now gained, anyone capable of even a modicum of reflection should trivially be able to dismantle red herring reform proposals made by erudite scholars of empire to cleverly maneuver the world towards the masters’ choice. Take for instance, this 1978 masterpiece by James Tobin, “A Proposal for Monetary Reform”, which many reform advocates now eagerly promulgate as the “Tobin tax”. [a27] It retained the international banksters’ profiteering axiom of ‘money as debt’ quite intact, and like his learned colleagues at the Federal Reserve System routinely do, proposed some other erudite gibberish for how to green the yellowing leaves. Tobin began with the following synopsis of the problem domain in his presidential address at the 1978 conference of the Eastern Economic Association, Washington DC:

Over the last twenty years economists’ prescriptions for reform of the international monetary system have taken various shapes. Their common premise was dissatisfaction with the Bretton Woods regime as it evolved in the 1950s. Robert Triffin awakened the world to the contradictions and instabilities of a system of pegged parities that relied on the debts in reserve currencies, mostly dollars, to meet growing needs for official reserves. Triffin and his followers saw the remedy as the internationalization of reserves and reserve assets; their ultimate solution was a world central bank. Others diagnosed the problem less in terms of liquidity than in the inadequacies of balance of payments adjustment mechanisms in the modern world. The inadequacies were especially evident under the fixed-parity gold-exchange standard when, as in the 1960s, the reserve currency center was structurally in chronic deficit. These analysts sought better and more symmetrical “rules of the game” for adjustments by surplus and deficit countries, usually including more flexibility in the setting of exchange parities, crawling pegs, and the like. Many economists, of whom Milton Friedman was an eloquent and persuasive spokesman, had all along advocated floating exchange rates, determined in private markets without official interventions.

Thus notice that in the above description of the problem domain, not a single mention, by anyone, of money coined by private central banks as a national debt from which they directly profit, like many a blood sucking leach. The conversation begins, very conveniently, posing an entirely different problem, as the key problem for monetary reform! Is this scribe the only one who sees such ab initio obfuscation by the super learned, which, by its very design, cleverly circumscribes the entire discourse space, and hence masks the real problem and its effective solution?

Tobin continues:

By the early l970s the third view was the dominant one in the economics profession, though not among central bankers and private financiers. And all of a sudden, thanks to Nixon and Connally, we got our wish. … Clearly, flexible rates have not been the panacea which their more extravagant advocates had hoped; international monetary problems have not disappeared from headlines or from the agenda of anxieties of central banks and governments.

So the “exchange rate regime” wasn’t the right problem to have solved for in the first place, as Tobin sheepishly observes from empirical results, for the problems persisted in the headlines then, and obviously still do today. The solution identified was in-efficacious for the disease, because it obviously did not address the root cause of the real disease. And this is essentially what Tobin is confessing to, that it was the wrong medicine for a poorly diagnosed disease:

I believe that the basic problem today is not the exchange rate regime, whether fixed or floating. Debate on the regime evades and obscures the essential problem.

Okay, so let’s see what is the new “essential problem” which Tobin identifies:

That is the excessive international-or better, inter-currency-mobility of private financial capital.

So the fundamental problem for monetary reform is now identified as “currency mobility”:

Under either exchange rate regime the currency exchanges transmit disturbances originating in international financial markets. … Specifically the mobility of financial capital limits viable differences among national interest rates and thus severely restricts the ability of central banks and governments to pursue monetary and fiscal policies appropriate to their internal economies.

Notice the error of obfuscation, of central banks are lumped with the government, and treated as benevolent entities operating in the best interest of the peoples just as governments are supposed to. With that as the unquestioned axiom, Tobin makes the accurate observation:

Likewise speculation on exchange rates, whether its consequences are vast shifts of official assets and debts or large movements of exchange rates themselves, have serious and frequently painful real internal economic consequences. Domestic policies are relatively powerless to escape them or offset them.

And then comes up with the wonderful solution space for this newly identified problem:

There are two ways to go. One is toward a common currency, common monetary and fiscal policy, and economic integration. The other is toward greater financial segmentation between nations or currency areas, permitting their central banks and governments greater autonomy in policies tailored to their specific economic institutions and objectives. The first direction, however appealing, is clearly not a viable option in the foreseeable future, i.e., the twentieth century. I therefore regretfully recommend the second, and my proposal is to throw some sand in the wheels of our excessively efficient international money markets.

And to his great regret, that he can’t immediately have world government of the central banksters as his first preferred solution, Tobin throws “some sand in the wheels of our excessively efficient international money markets”! He formulates both the problem, and its solution thusly:

At present the world enjoys many benefits of the increased worldwide economic integration of the last thirty years. But the integration is partial and unbalanced; in particular private financial markets have become internationalized much more rapidly and completely than other economic and political institutions. That is why we are in trouble. So I turn to the second, and second best, way out, forcing some segmentation of inter-currency financial markets.

Great – and that “forcing some segmentation of inter-currency financial markets” is his famed ‘Tobin Tax’, which many would-be monetary reformers now carry upon their own proud backs as the greatest invention since sliced bread! It is not un-interesting to observe that Tobin’s language of “economic integration, “one world” ideal, [of] a common currency, national financial and capital markets, and a single national monetary policy”, almost mirrors that of David Rockefeller. And surely, his ‘Tobin Tax’ may well be a solution to some problem, but certainly not the most significant one which plagues all mankind – the spectre of debt-slavery!

This is, qualitatively, exactly equivalent to the mainstream focussing on the stated legitimacy of the ‘war on terror’ – for the suicide bombers are indeed a grotesque and observable reality – and axiomatically assuming that those going after them are the good guys doing so in self-defense! The famous dissent-stream only disagreeing to the extent that yes, these ‘terrorists’ are real, but it’s “blowback”, and that we should not be using this for “imperial mobilization”! But neither entertaining the thought that perhaps the threat of suicide bombings is being deliberately manufactured, and in order to make the threats appear credible and non-immanent, the bombings planned into existence! [a28]

After all, who did not see the planes crash into the tall buildings on television? Thus, keeping the first axiom of 911 – ‘Bin Laden’s invasion from abroad’ – naturally intact, or unexamined, or deflected as “endless controversy, [which] just gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation”, all kinds of artificial discourse space, and its concomitant inefficacious solutions, are opened up for energetic debate in society. Being part of the same world-game, economists too conjure up their pet solutions keeping the sacred-cow axioms unquestioned, and then use the resulting failures and/or expected reactions as rationale for pushing their preferred overarching agenda. Tobin openly regretted in 1978 that the time wasn’t ripe for pushing his “one world” agenda all the way home just yet:

Perhaps it is true that establishing a common currency and a central macro-economic policy will automatically generate the institutions, markets, and mobilities which make the system viable and its regional economic consequences everywhere tolerable. The risk is one that few are prepared to take. Moreover, EEC experience to date suggests that it is very hard to contrive a scenario of gradual evolution towards such a radically different regime, even though it could well be the global optimum.

Time has indeed been made ripe today, another thirty years further into the machinations for world government from when James Tobin wrote that! And that same overarching agenda – which Norman Dodd revealed, which Tobin confirmed, and which even Allen W. Dulles, the founding father of the CIA and its longest running Director, lamented in 1946 would require “time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible” – is now being pushed with the most forceful vigor by all the banksters and their minions [a29].

How much more confirmation does one need before the pig-headed men and women of substance – the much lauded persons of the arts, sciences, and the letters – will recognize what’s staring one blatantly in the face? It is a calculated conspiracy which sees no price as too burdensome, no war as too onerous, and no extermination as too unsightly, for creating world government!

It is also very convenient for the learned to mix up the ‘highest order bit’ with ‘lower order bits’ of a complex matter – irrespective of deliberately or inadvertently – for the plebes can hardly tell the difference. And that’s just wonderful for creating clever red herrings when the latter are emphasized, and the former is ignored! Surely whatever one comes up with is always a solution to something, and that’s just as undeniable as any pathetic tautology. But is it a solution to the ‘most significant bit’? Has the problem itself been accurately diagnosed, and the systemic multi-lateral illness accurately mapped out to its very DNA? Not when the sacred-cow axioms remain untouchable! And this is indeed how one wins a Nobel Prize and lucrative appointments. [a30] In some cases, even stays alive.

To explain the commonsense concept of ‘bit’ drawn from electrical engineering, it’s like having a “one” in the 7th decimal place, and also in the 2nd decimal place, to create the total amount One million and Ten dollars, $1,000,010, and while auditing the books, focussing on the digit position which identifies the Ten dollars and not the one which identifies the Million! The significance of this is not lost to the banksters!

With that detailed analysis as the backdrop to warn the unwary mind of the unlimited methods at the disposal of a highly intellectual ruling elite which predominantly runs its affairs using political science 101, not good intentions 101, it is also important to emphasize that one monetary system does not necessarily fit all challenges, nor meet the needs of all nations.

Some nations are more agrarian, struggling with even the basics of daily existential necessities, and some are already in the post industrialization travails borne of superfluity and rape of poorer nations. Cultural sensitivities and social mores also make one size fit all an anathema to those peoples who don’t always measure all that they value in dollars and cents!

But one basic principle of money does fit them all, and no nation’s public is ever against it:

Power to coin a nation’s money, and to manage its money supply, thus availability of credit to borrowers, must not be put in the for-profit interest-bearing indenting hands of private individuals and their banking institutions regardless of how kindly and benevolent their claimed motives, how great their claimed expertise, or how compelling the expediency.

And yet, despite such a common principle uniting all the detractors of aggregated wealth and proponents of monetary reform, both their detailed analysis of the problems, as well as their proposed system-solutions, often suffers from their jumbled philosophies which almost act like ‘religion’. That’s partially because it is indeed ‘religion’ and passion for justice which drives the detractors, not business motives for personal gain, as it does their antagonists who little care for the purity, or lack thereof, of their fleecing system, and only remain focused on how to keep their befuddled flock in perpetual debt. The bankers therefore, apart from their enormous power and wealth, hold a practical and expedient advantage over the ‘malcontents’ who are seeped in idealism, and often with empty pockets.

Furthermore, all such proponents of a new monetary system even do not pursue a proper system design discipline. They invariably link their design to an imagined economic system of their preference, and none is able to perceive that one is a mechanism, the other is policy. Many economic policies, even full blown economic systems as diverse as socialism, to real free-market capitalism with winner take all, and every social balance in between, should be efficiently constructible on a properly architected monetary system mechanism which operates in the public interest. To understand the real challenges, please see “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?” and this response to the petition in “Open Letter to G-20”.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that some propose platitudes as solutions, forgetting that the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are at least 3000 years old but have made little impact on the real world of avarice and plunder. These include proposals for radical transformations as if revolutions are just around the corner. Some propose solutions which merely favor the private central-bankers themselves, knowingly or unwittingly is immaterial. Many of these are almost always cosmetic bandaids. These also include partial solutions that leave the core problems intact. “Religion” is most apparent in these arguments. An example of this is the gold standard, or the gold-equivalence standard pushed upon the world by the dominant victor of World War II at Bretton Woods. The “religion” in this case is protecting the asset holders against inflation at all cost.

A memorable oration in history on this “religious” discourse already exists. It was made by William Jennings Bryan over a century ago. [a31] The principles still remain the same, even as they were the same under which the English forced the gold standard upon the colonies to bring the prosperous colonies back from coining their own money called ‘colonial scrip’, into the fold of debt enslavement to the British empire which monopolized the gold. [a32] This speech is worthy of review by any student, and proponent, of a gold backed standard. Project Humanbeingsfirst has taken its first analytic look at the idea of a limited ‘precious commodity’ backing a national currency, in “Monetary Reform: First Look at the Gold Standard”.

In the ability to tell the nuanced differences therein, among outright BS, partial asininity born of misconceptions, idealism, and usefulness at different application hierarchies, lies the key that can practicably and immediately unlock the world from the debt shackles of the perpetual monetary conspiracy for world government. Coming together on one single point of focus, debt-free coining of money by a government, and single-mindedly driving that focus to the point of its political acceptance – as fait accompli – and leaving the design of the actual monetary system under that guiding principle to a transparent body chartered by the government, or Congress, as a public process, is the only sensible approach. Indeed, the only practical reform approach that will ever work.

But as those given to even a modicum of realism well understand, rectification of injustices is only possible either with the mighty hand of the victor’s justice, or under the astute gamesmanship of balance of power. In this case, political power to affect legal solutions at all levels. Never on its own, regardless of the soundness of the platitudes or the solutions.

To build such a balance of power today that might be effective, does not seem to be in the capability arsenal of those proposing monetary reform solutions. A largely powerless peoples who cannot even fund one single economics think-tank of national consequence, and one single financial political action group of influence, never mind mustering the kind of lobbying-power before which powerful Congress persons and local law-makers, mayors, state governors, attorney generals, and newspaper editorialists might bow their head.

Realistically, I see no impact by monetary reformers at the national or international level. For it is but a truism that those who control purse strings, control nations’ destinies – the real golden rule on earth, as old as mankind! To confiscate their purse-strings – as easy as a stroke of pen – is a revolutionary act for which there is no “Jesus” today to cleanse the Congress of the moneychangers. The Wall Street bailout with the new crown of thorns, and which the US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson [a33] is now brazenly attempting to extend to crucify all of mankind upon the new cross of a global monetary system, is proof-sufficient.

Finally, not wishing to end on the afore-stated pessimistic note as in the original version of this report, Project Humanbeingsfirst’s position is the one principally reflected in the political-science notion of countering power with power and not platitudes, and principles of hegemony with principles for liberty, not ego nor preference for a particular “religion”. The first loss of sovereignty of a nation, is the loss of controlling its money. The founding fathers of the United States of America understood that principle just as well as the founders of empire from time immemorial – as evidenced in this excerpt from an oped which appeared in the Times of London: [a34]

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

It entirely sums up Project Humanbeingsfirst’s antithetical axiom adopted as its rallying cry for abolishing the Federal Reserve System – the power of private central banking – forcefully reclaiming, for all nations and all peoples, what President Lincoln had noted: [a35]

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers.”

“The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity.”

“By the adoption of these principles … the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

[a3] Warren Buffett, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2002 Annual Report, pages 13-15: “Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal”, and, “We view them as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system” http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2002ar/2002ar.pdf

[a5] Raphael Eitan, quoted in: Former Israeli army chief drowns, BBC News, Nov. 23, 2004, “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4034765.stm

[a10] Noam Chomsky, putting out his pathetic “911” Seven Stories Press booklet to tote his broken horn of “blowback” and state sponsored terrorism immediately after 9/11, retaining all the core-axioms seeded by the Pentagon and the White House, not to mention making a ton of money on it at the expense of devastated civilizations, has left this scribe intellectually standing quite alone to fend for himself, without any priests! See Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer, Hoover Institution, http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html who quotes Chomsky: “If you look at the things I write—articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever—they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.” Peter Schweizer further observes: “Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand. He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press. His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the publisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.” The following video clip of Noam Chomsky’s interview on CBC is also disturbing to observe, in that while he very eruditely questions the overt motivations of the ‘rogue state’ bombing Afghanistan as outright criminal, he leaves unquestioned, the core-axiom upon which the state sponsored terrorism itself was based – he does not question the government’s narrative of 911. Just like once before, for the JFK’s assassination, Chomsky did not question that official narrative either. Noam Chomsky still maintained, in his email communication as of 2008 with this scribe, that ‘Bin Laden’ had done 911, and he scoffs at those who might argue that the only person who couldn’t have done the controlled demolition of WTC-7 on which no plane hit, is a yogi sitting on his rump in the Hindu-Kush, armed to the teeth with AK-47s, cell phones, laptops, and prayers! Nevertheless, apparently, it is acceptable to the ‘rogue state’ that controlled critique be permitted on its “imperialism” upon others in order to channel and manage a controlled dissent on what is already obvious to all and sundry, and to vigorously prevent dissent from being extended to what might really interfere with its agendas and complex magic-shows such as genuinely conscionable thinking peoples correctly adding two plus two equals four and effectively mobilizing protest in millions based upon it. Protests of a few hundred thousand is merely “focus group”. It will remain so as long as there is an external enemy to continually scare the peoples with. Protest of ten million in major cities however, when the enemy is known to be within, an inside job, becomes “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”. Chomsky had explained ‘Manufacturing Consent’. This scribe has explained ‘Manufacturing Dissent’ in “Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science” http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html (Part 1 of 2 CBC Interview) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10rTPSSmOFw (Part 2 of 2 CBC Interview) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bieFwutoqvA

[a11] Paul Joseph Watson, Howard Zinn: “I Don’t Care” If 9/11 Was An Inside Job, Tuesday, November 18, 2008, http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job.html Transcript from video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 In response to a question by Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate from Colorado, Howard Zinn stated: “Of course as I told you, I never believe the government, or rarely believe the government. Do I believe the government version of what happened? Well, I am skeptical. Do I believe that the government was in the conspiracy to do this? I don’t know. I don’t know enough about the situation, and the truth is, I don’t care that much. That’s past. … the whole argument that the people are engaged in, about, was the government behind a conspiracy to blow up the two towers, to me that’s a diversion from what we really have to do, deal with the fact that whatever, whoever was behind 9/11, the government took advantage of that, to take us to war, and to put us on a disastrous course, and it’s that war, those wars, that disastrous course we have to deal with. I don’t want to go back to the controversy that I think is endless controversy, and just gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation.” Howard Zinn not dealing with the first-cause enabler of “imperial mobilization” lends automatic endorsement to the government’s axiomatic propagandistic lie, that there is an external enemy. And it is precisely that propaganda which keeps the fire of “doctrinal motivation and intellectual commitment” lighted underneath all the wars that Howard Zinn does want to deal with! So even for pragmatically dealing with the “immediate situation”, directly dealing with the first-pretext cause to yank away the very fuel of “doctrinal motivation” might appear to the sound of mind to be the most efficacious and sensible course of action. Therefore, deliberately not dealing with it only lends zero efficacy to all the subsequent dissent because the existence of the enemy remains unchallenged. That’s just peachy for the government, isn’t it? By its more logical name, such devious support of the ruling elite’s mission, might rightly be called ‘Manufacturing Dissent’! So much for the intellectuals of the West – where “truth” is a commodity, like everything else.

[a13] Noam Chomsky, in an interview with Barry Pateman at M.I.T., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO2e0DrnYg4 makes the following coldly accurate observation on deliberate attitude control being calculatingly practiced upon the public in free-societies by its ruling-elite, but then, quite inexplicably, fails to apply that same observation to his own blind acceptance of government propaganda of ‘Bin laden’ did 911, just like his friend Howard Zinn (op. cit.), also forgetting his own decades’ old moralizing proclamations on the responsibility of intellectuals “Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions.” (Ibid.). Transcript from video clip, 7:15 to 8:50, “The people who understand this the best, are those who are carrying out the control of domination. In the more free societies like the United States and England, where popular struggles have won a lot of freedom over the years, and the state has limited capacity to coerce, there is a very striking, that it is precisely in those societies, that elite groups, the business world, and state managers, and so on, recognized early on, that they are going to have to develop massive methods of control of attitude and opinion, because you can’t control people by force anymore. And therefore, you have to modify their consciousness, so that they don’t perceive that they are living under conditions of alienation, oppression, subordination, and so on. In fact, that’s what, probably a couple of trillion dollars a year are spent on this in the United States, very self-consciously, I mean from the framing of television advertisements for two-year olds, to what you are taught in graduate school economics programs. It’s designed to create a kind of a consciousness of subordination, and it’s also intended, specifically, and pretty consciously, to suppress normal human emotions.” For a deconstruction of this “you have to modify their consciousness” paradigm to create both conformity of views among the sheep, and harmlessness of dissent among the thoughtful, see Project Humanbeingsfirst report “Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science” http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.

Copyright Notice:

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted, provided the URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. The rights of the author to express these views are based on inalienable rights noted at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html, and to do so freely without suffering intimidation and duress. All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit “fair use” in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Full copyright notice and Exclusions at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org.

Behavior Control

Edward
Bernays On The Public Mind:

“We
are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Aldous
Huxley On The Public Mind:

“we
are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will
enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and
presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their
servitude!”

Bertrand
Russell On The Public Mind:

“What
a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his
desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If
a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or
worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times
even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he
will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.”

Adolf
Hitler On The Public Mind:

“Not
infrequently it is a case of overcoming ingrained prejudices which
are mostly unconscious and are supported by sentiment rather than
reason.

It
is a thousand times more difficult to overcome this barrier of
instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventive dissent than to
correct opinions which are founded on defective or erroneous
knowledge.

False
ideas and ignorance may be set aside by means of instruction, but
emotional resistance never can.”

“One
must also remember that of itself the multitude is mentally inert,
that it remains attached to its old habits and that it is not
naturally prone to read something which does not conform with its own
pre-established beliefs when such writing does not contain what the
multitude hopes to find there.

Therefore,
some piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for the most
part read only by those who are in sympathy with it.”

“The
deluge of papers and books published by the intellectual circles year
after year passed over the millions of the lower social strata like
water over glazed leather.”

“The
great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and
outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather
than by sober reasoning.

This
sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is
not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive
notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its
notions are never partly this and partly that.

English
propaganda [during World War I] especially understood this in a
marvellous way and put what they understood into practice.

They
allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt.

Proof
of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is
something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of
horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the
time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral
solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats.

Further,
the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely
responsible for the war--which was a brutal and absolute
falsehood--and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was
excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are
always extremist in their feelings.

And
thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed.”

“Generally,
readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:

First,
those who believe everything they read;

Second,
those who no longer believe anything;

Third,
those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments
accordingly.

Numerically,
the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad
masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion
of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation but
only into grades of intelligence.

Under
this category come all those who have not been born to think for
themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly through
incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything that is
set before them in print.

To
these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable
of thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs
everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to
have been thoroughly done.

The
influence which the Press has on all these people is therefore
enormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation.
But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally
to sift what is being served up to them; so that their whole attitude
towards daily problems is almost solely the result of extraneous
influence.

The
second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those
who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter
disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see
in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at
all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which
they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements.

These
people are difficult to handle; for they will always be sceptical of
the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive
work.

The
third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real
intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to
think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own
judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.

They
will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to
collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set
writers an easy task.

Journalists
appreciate this type of reader only with a certain amount of
reservation.

Hence
the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little
danger--much less of importance--to the members of the third group of
readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard
every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the
truth.

Most
unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence
and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a
period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything.

Nowadays
when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the
decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that
is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”

“Particular
attention should be paid to the Press; for its influence on these
people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all; since its
effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance lies
in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching.

Here,
if anywhere, the State should never forget that all means should
converge towards the same end.

It
must not be led astray by the will-o'-the-wisp of so-called 'freedom
of the Press', or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding
from the nation that which is good and which does good.

With
ruthless determination the State must keep control of this instrument
of popular education and place it at the service of the State and the
Nation.”

“No
matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of
propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of
these fundamental principles.

Propaganda must be limited to a few
simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as
in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most
important condition of success.”

AND:
This is How the Mighty
Wurlitzer
does all of that to construct the Fourth Reich:

“We
are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the
responsibility for our future.” --- George Bernard Shaw